Twitxy Saved

Prof Ian Pace

Verified account This account is verified. Learn more

@drianpace

Pianist, Professor of Music, Culture and Society, @citysociology. Views here my own. Co-convenor @cityuniafaf, Secretary @lucaf_london
City of London, London Joined September 2018
3.1K Following 4.8K Followers 15K Posts

Latest posts 5

Pinned post

Prof Ian Pace Verified account @drianpace
New article from me for @CAmericain_mag , inspired by watching ‘The Warzone’, which evoked strong memories of the terrifying period of nuclear fear in the early 1980s, and its various representations in literature, film, TV, etc.

‘When I have taught students cultural history of the early 1980s, I have regularly stressed how powerful the fear of nuclear war was for many growing up in or living through that period. Most of those I have taught were born or grew up in a period following the fall of the Berlin Wall, and as time goes on, knowledge of the Cold War, or even communism, can be increasingly vague. My knowledge now of the fall of communism and has changed my perspective on the early 1980s, but this does not lessen the memories of the impact at the time.

I recall many discussions with others at my school as to whether or when we thought there would be a nuclear war. Some were convinced this would happen within the next ten years; others thought it would happen before the millennium. But most of those I knew were sure it would happen, so that it was just a question of which conflict would spark it. I remember feeling a sense of hopelessness and depression from all of this, wondering what the point was of planning for the future.
[…]
…the black TV comedy Whoops Apocalypse, imagining a nightmarish scenario in which a comically inept US president is advised by a fundamentalist fanatic, and a Labour government in the UK comes to join the Warsaw Pact. This is combined with a wide range of global incidents based on real events, which lead to the accidental detonation of a nuclear bomb in Israel, en route to being used to help the brother of the deposed Shah of Iran, then rapid escalation ending with global annihilation.

In 1984, the threat of nuclear annihilation was at the heart of a No. 1 hit, Frankie Goes to Hollywood’s “Two Tribes”. In the video, actors playing Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Konstantin Chernenko are in a wrestling match as a metaphor for the struggle for world domination. Over the top of the song, we hear narration from the original government information films of Protect and Survive (1975-76), spoken by actor Patrick Allen. Another song which hit No. 1 that year in the UK was the English version of “99 Luftballons” by the German band Nena; I recall few people noticing that this was a song evoking helium balloons being released and being mistaken for enemy invasion, leading to nuclear escalation.
[….]

The culture I remember from the 1980s involved large-scale dissent towards Western governments offsetting a general political rightwards drift. But the existence of this scenario demonstrated a lot of what was valuable about the societies in which it occurred. They could broadcast portrayals of their own destruction, ridicule official advice, and question or satirize the motivations and purposes of those holding power. It would be terrible to lose the capacity for this, and that is one of the many reasons I believe the West to be worth defending. ‘

cafeamericainmag.com/my-cold-war/
cafeamericainmag.com My Cold War Growing Up in Britain in the Nuclear 1980s
2 replies 3 reposts 6 likes 2.1K views View on X
Prof Ian Pace Verified account @drianpace
‘The culture I remember from the 1980s involved large-scale dissent towards Western governments offsetting a general political rightwards drift. But the existence of this scenario demonstrated a lot of what was valuable about the societies in which it occurred. They could broadcast portrayals of their own destruction, ridicule official advice, and question or satirize the motivations and purposes of those holding power. It would be terrible to lose the capacity for this, and that is one of the many reasons I believe the West to be worth defending.’
Café Américain magazine Verified account @CAmericain_mag 3d
New this week—

1/3 - @drianpace on the films, books and music begotten by nuclear terror.

cafeamericainmag.com/my-cold-war/
View quoted post on X
Prof Ian Pace Verified account @drianpace
Susan Sontag’s essay ‘Against Interpretation’ (1964) remains one of the most counterblasts against approaches and attitudes to art and culture (or anything else) which render them as little more than an expression of social relations. And I love the fact that she advocates a type of formalism, as well as the advocacy of such wonderful writers as Panofsky, Frye, Francastel, Barthes and others.

‘What kind of criticism, of commentary on the arts, is desirable today? For I am not saying that works of art are ineffable, that they cannot be described or paraphrased. They can be. The question is how. What would criticism look like that would serve the work of art, not usurp its place?

What is needed, first, is more attention to form in art. If excessive stress on content provokes the arrogance of interpretation, more extended and more thorough descriptions of form would silence. What is needed is a vocabulary—a descriptive, rather than prescriptive, vocabulary—for forms.* The best criticism, and it is uncommon, is of this sort that dissolves considerations of content into those of form. On film, drama, and painting respectively, I can think of Erwin Panofsky’s essay, “Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures,” Northrop Frye’s essay “A Conspectus of Dramatic Genres,” Pierre Francastel’s essay “The Destruction of a Plastic Space.” Roland Barthes’ book On Racine and his two essays on Robbe-Grillet are examples of formal analysis applied to the work of a single author. (The best essays in Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis, like “The Scar of Odysseus,” are also of this type.) An example of formal analysis applied simultaneously to genre and author is Walter Benjamin’s essay, “The Story Teller: Reflections on the Works of Nicolai Leskov.”

Equally valuable would be acts of criticism which would supply a really accurate, sharp, loving description of the appearance of a work of art. This seems even harder to do than formal analysis. Some of Manny Farber’s film criticism, Dorothy Van Ghent’s essay “The Dickens World: A View from Todgers’,” Randall Jarrell’s essay on Walt Whitman are among the rare examples of what I mean. These are essays which reveal the sensuous surface of art without mucking about in it.

Transparence is the highest, most liberating value in art-and in criticism- today. Transparence means experiencing the luminousness of the thing in itself, of things being what they are. This is the greatness of, for example, the films of Bresson and Ozu and Renoir’s The Rules of the Game.

Once upon a time (say, for Dante), it must have been a revolutionary and creative move to design works of art so that they might be experienced on several levels. Now it is not. It reinforces the principle of redundancy that is the principal affliction of modem life.

Once upon a time (a time when high art was scarce), it must have been a revolutionary and creative move to interpret works of art. Now it is not. What we decidedly do not need now is further to assimilate Art into Thought, or (worse yet) Art into Culture.’

static1.squarespace.com/static/54889e7…
Prof Ian Pace Verified account @drianpace
‘Music speak for itself’ - hmmmm
Elizabeth Verified account @RedElixier 16h
There is something about virtuosity which repels me. Where there is a focus on the performer, the skill, talent, originality or grandiosity of the execution in stead of letting the art or music speak for itself as an instance of deep and stirring consequence, something which quickens the soul, which drives the senses to a undeniable encounter with beauty and greatness that far exceeds any single performance or reception.
View quoted post on X